# New tobaccos tax (?)



## GunnyJ (Jun 22, 2018)

The original Build Back Better Act contained tobacco and nicotine taxes estimated to raise $100 billion over 10 years. These increases have been dropped from the latest version. According to our good friends at the Tax Foundation, these increases have been replaced with a proposal for a federal tax on nicotine products "which would tax products by nicotine content at a rate of $50.33 per 1,810 milligrams of nicotine." Their article, Wrong Tax Base Leads to Multiple Issues for Federal Nicotine Tax Proposal, details how the proposal falls short on improving public health and raising revenue. 

I understand how nicotine content can be determined in certain products. But what I can't figure out is how to determine the nicotine content of a cigar (or can of pipe tobacco, any pure tobacco product really) when each cigar is made from leaves from multiple plants where nicotine content is not equally distributed within one plant, let alone the plant in a single crop (and across several crops spanning multiple countries etc.) unless each cigar is individually tested. Since individual testing and pricing is unrealistic it stands to reason that some kind of average would be used. If that's the case then the tax would be levied more on guesswork of nicotine content rather than actual content.

IMHO this seems as stupid as the proposal to tax capital gains on the "value" of certain assets every year instead of only at the time of sale. It's like telling a shop owner "We aren't sure what your inventory is, but we think it's _x_ therefore you must pay _y_ dollars in taxes based on what we think your warehouse contains. Oh, and BTW, we think you are going to make _m_ dollars profit in 12 months from selling your unknown inventory _x_ therefore you must pay _z_ dollars for unrealized income based on said unknown inventory."


----------



## Bird-Dog (Oct 16, 2009)

*Moderator alert: *

The OP addresses the methodology of taxation, not political implications.
I understand some members may be tempted to go down the political
avenue in reply, but please do not. CF is an apolitical site. Delving into
the politics of the subject matter will result in deletion of posts and
possible suspension.


----------



## Scap (Nov 27, 2012)

Why 1,810mg?
Seems oddly random, unless they are specifically targeting a single product and everything else is collateral damage.

ETA: I just read that the tax is focusing on nicotine that has been extracted, concentrated, or synthesized.


----------



## UBC03 (Nov 18, 2015)

Scap said:


> Why 1,810mg?
> Seems oddly random, unless they are specifically targeting a single product and everything else is collateral damage.
> 
> ETA: I just read that the tax is focusing on nicotine that has been extracted, concentrated, or synthesized.


My guess is it's for the type of juice I buy for my vape pen. It's REALLY high nicotine concentrate. You can't use it in those regular giant cloud vape things or you'll be talked about in the past tense. 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## GunnyJ (Jun 22, 2018)

My guess is because a 10ml bottle of e-liquid that is 18mg/ml or 1.8% has 180mg of nicotine in total. Or 1.8% of the entire contents of the 10ml bottle is nicotine. The 1.8% is considered "heavy smoking" (20+ cigarettes per day). I'm not sure how vape is sold, but if you buy a ten pack of 10ml bottles then the tax rate would be $50.33 (?). As the Tax Foundation points out "Nicotine pouches for oral consumption would be subject to a very high rate. A can of 20 pouches, each containing 8 mg of nicotine, would be subject to $4.45 in taxes per can." Each can has 160 mg of nicotine, a sleeve of ten cans would be 1600 milligrams and $44.50 in taxes, closing in on the $50.33 mark.

It makes sense that a tax can be applied to a quantifiable thing, such as e-liquid, since manufacturers know how much nicotine is added. It doesn't make sense when a true nicotine content cannot be accurately measured (cigar to cigar...).


----------



## Aimless1 (Jul 24, 2020)

CDC methodology



https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/49629/cdc_49629_DS1.pdf?


----------



## Aimless1 (Jul 24, 2020)

I think the CDC is equating all tobacco is the same. It seems fairer to y tax on the basis of nicotine absorbed in the blood stream. Cigarettes nicotine is almost 109% absorbed. Whereas cigars are only 10% of available nicotene absorbed. One cigarette can have more nicotene absorbed than a small cigar. The delivery method is different. Inhalation is a better nicotene delivery system than absorption in the mouth.


----------



## UBC03 (Nov 18, 2015)

If you smoke cigarettes you're used to this crap. In the last five years my cigarettes went from 4.20 to 7.40. I'm not doin the math but it's gotta be close to an 80% increase. 

I said I'd quit at 1.50, then it was 2$, I was DEFINITELY quitting at 5$. Guess who just spent 74$ on a carton of generic USA GOLDS. You betcha... ME. 

"Luckily" I live in a dirt poor state, where EVERYBODY smokes and the elected officials prefer to nickel and dime us smokers to death. They know we're stupid enough to " rationalize" that extra dime, per pack, every couple months for our nicotine fix. 

Relax boys and smoke up. You could be Canadian. The sonsabeaches get pummeled comin and goin. 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## GunnyJ (Jun 22, 2018)

One take away from that study is "There was a wide range (7.88 – 24.8 mg/g) of nicotine concentrations observed among cigar products (mean 12.9 mg/g; median 12.2 mg/g)." Which goes back to the how would a tax be fairly determined by nicotine content?

I disagree with a tax based on the nicotine absorption rate because that rate is dependent on the user as much as the delivery. A person who inhales cigar smoke will have a significantly higher nicotine absorption rate over a person who does not inhale.

If a tobacco tax is implemented it should be done on a quantifiable item - amount of cigars or total weight of tobacco or where the tobacco is grown...any factor that can be fairly measured.


----------

